FW: Last Call: draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)) to Informational RFC

FYI

The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)'
>    <draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01.txt> as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-12-05. Exceptionally, 
> comments may be sent to iesg <at> ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01.txt
>
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17805&rfc_flag=0
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>   

internet area open meeting agenda

We have a light agenda this time. If there are any requests for 
discussion items or presentations, please let the ADs know.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/agenda/intarea.txt

Jari

Fwd: Combine WGs for NAT66 discussion re internet area open meeting agenda

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

v4v6 coexistence reading list for IETF73 - revised

This may be of use to those interested in current work in IPv4-IPv6
coexistence tools. The work is going on in 3 working groups and some
drafts will be on on each agenda. There will also be some general 
discussion in the intarea meeting.

This has been revised reflecting comments from Dan Wing and Rene 
Despres.  Please comment if I have missed any drafts, or 
mis-characterized any of these as to WG, status or category. Or any 
other suggestions to make it more useful.

the table is attached in MS Word, I have not attempted to ascii-fy it 
after my last badly formatted e-mail...

See you on the edge of the prairie, where all the network engineers are 
above average.
	

Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  ed.jankiewicz <at> sri.com

This may be of use to those interested in current work in IPv4-IPv6
coexistence tools. The work is going on in 3 working groups and some
drafts will be on on each agenda. There will also be some general 
discussion in the intarea meeting.

This has been revised reflecting comments from Dan Wing and Rene 
Despres.  Please comment if I have missed any drafts, or 
mis-characterized any of these as to WG, status or category. Or any 
other suggestions to make it more useful.

the table is attached in MS Word, I have not attempted to ascii-fy it 
after my last badly formatted e-mail...

See you on the edge of the prairie, where all the network engineers are 
above average.
	

Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  ed.jankiewicz <at> sri.com

Re: internet area open meeting agenda

The agenda has been updated and is now consider more or less final. And 
no longer light 

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/agenda/intarea.txt

Jari

Re: Fwd: Combine WGs for NAT66 discussion re internet area open meeting agenda

Eric,

> As the NAT66 discussion seems to be happening in several WGs at once, 
> it seems to me (and Tim) that you should try to hold some sort of 
> joint meeting in INT-AREA to get some sort of consensus yes or no for 
> NAT in v6 or at least to do a gap analysis
>  
> Current Groups working on it are v6OPS, BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and 
> now v6.

We considered this, but at the end decided that its better to keep the 
biggest nat66 discussion in one place, and that is going to be BEHAVE. 
They have enough time for it, and many people will be attending. I hope 
people from this list will, too.

I am aware that there will be some other discussions as well. It might 
be that a full BOF next time might the best place to make decisions.

Jari

Re: Fwd: Combine WGs for NAT66 discussion re internet area open meeting agenda

_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area

Internet AD Office Hours Sunday 1430 - 1630

The Internet ADs will be holding "Open Office Hours" from 1430-1630 
Sunday. Tentatively this will be in Boardroom II (assume this is so, 
unless you see an update email around lunch time today).

Jari is double-booked at the start of this meeting, but should be able 
to arrive by 1530. At 1630, Jari and I will head over to the "Meet and 
Greet" session for first-time IETFers and WG Chairs, then to the general 
reception at 1700, so you should be able to catch us there as well.

Safe travels all, and see you soon.

- Mark

draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr and Class E networks

After the presentation on the intarea session yesterday I though about  
something that was said ( I do not remember the person that did the  
comment) in the last NANOG meeting during the panel: " What Would Jon  
have Done About the Addressing Challenges Currently Facing Us?".

The comment was about what Jon Postel did with the cable companies and  
the 24/8 network. He allocated the address block but forced the cable  
companies to test CIDR. In that sense he gave something and got  
something.

I wonder if we could take that example for the "shared address" case  
and re-activate the re-definition of the Class E space as "for private  
use" (draft-wilson-class-e-02) in order to be able to be use for this  
architectures if the ISP are willing to do so.

Roque

Malta interim meeting is canceled

FYI:

Russ Housley wrote:

> Thanks for all of the valuable input.  The IAOC has just taken a vote, 
> and the Malta Large Interim Meeting Experiment in January 2009 is not 
> going to take place.  The primarily reason for this decision is the 
> number of people that are able to commit to on-site participation.  
> The total number of people that indicated that they would attend is 
> less than 60.  That does not qualify as a large Interim Meeting.  With 
> this level of participation, we will not learn the things that we had 
> hoped from the experiment.